No, actually, it isn't. I have an MBA from a top ten school, I've run my own business for nearly 20 years, and I've done a fair bit of studying in this industry.
The freemium model is not used "for survival". It is used because it is extremely profitable due to the way it exploits human psychological weaknesses.
There are many games that do just fine without using this sort of system. Especially a company as large as EA could easily afford to run a game like this on a subscription basis, or use microtransactions only for cosmetics. There are games that do fine even with one-time purchases and the occasional expansion pack, offering unlimited content with no energy barriers or other silliness.
This system is not required, and whales are not "paying the poor devs' salaries so we can all have this wonderful game to enjoy". The model is used because it makes a lot more money than traditional (and more honest) financing schemes because of people who, given the opportunity to spend foolish amounts of money on something, will do it.
Whales are not the difference between devs being employed or unemployed. They are the difference between the CEO getting the 42' yacht or having to settle for the 32' one.
Just because you have an MBA gives you 0% knowledge of their financials. That was my point about purely speculation. You aren't a master of anyone's finances (except your own and your business), regardless of your degree.
If these games are what is giving the CEO a yacht, then why the heck are people still making traditional desktop games (or more fair games). If what you are saying is true, then they are basically making a business decision to lose out on money.
Whales are in fact paying these devs salaries. I am sure they are profiting from the purchases, but without purchases they are not making money and they will drop the game. I have played multiple games like this that ended up shutting down (a recent one was the start was game similar to this, it was from a first person perspective though). I put some good money into that game, and I bet at some point it was raking it in, but then they shut it down. If their model was making their CEO have huge yachts, they would still be making it. Same with the game I used in my quote. It was making tons of money, always up on the top money making list... until it wasn't. Then they devoted their resources to another game and stopped development on the game I played.
Moral of the story... we don't know anything about the finances or why they chose to price something at a specific price. We can complain about "greedy EA" all we want, but unless you are their CFO, whatever you say is just speculation.
Yes, as a mostly f2p, I see no reason for me to be upset...
Well put. I like this new offering. It really hit the mark. Next, I would like to see a pack offered for f2p and while they are at it one for belugas that have spent over $1,000.
Moral of the story... we don't know anything about the finances or why they chose to price something at a specific price. We can complain about "greedy EA" all we want, but unless you are their CFO, whatever you say is just speculation.
You may not know anything. You don't speak for anyone else.
Much of the information is freely available online. (EA is a publicly-traded company.) There are revenue figures available. And a lot of the rest is easily calculated by anyone with the inclination to do so.
Believe what you want, I have no interest in this sort of deliberately nihilistic debate.
ETA: Not everyone on this planet lives solely to make as much money as possible. There are many famous people/companies who have deliberately chosen not to follow the "freemium" model specifically because of its moral implications.
This is not a game anymore, it's a gambling machine, they crossed the line one more time.
200$ as a minimum, just for one character (a premium character) in a mobile game who doesn't have a real multiplayer, deep content, and... a chat! It's tremendous, it's unreal .
Don't buy it then. I think they should offer as many packs as they want. It's their game and let the user base decided if it's good or not.
This is not the point, I'm just scared.
This can be the future of games industry and it's beggining in this mobile game... a Star Wars mobile game, step by step.
They are not including low spenders, making low cost packs and things like that, since his launch.
Don't take this the wrong way (not trying to be rude) but this has been happening in mobile games FOREVER. This is how they survive. They have to sell you stupid crap to make you feel you need it so you spend money. You got "season passes" in desktop games, and these ludicrous gambling-style "packs" to get your characters in mobile games. I don't see this going anywhere (which is frustrating), so you kind of have to either go F2P and play a handful of games, or you pick 1 game and spend more than you should :P
Yes, I agree with you but in all mobile games that I've played I never saw huge prices like in this game.
Season passes in desktop games don't cost more than 50$, I'm tottaly sure. Even in F2P games, with 100$ you will be a god in the game, definitely. "...you pick 1 game and spend more than you should" Yes, that happend with me in SWTOR, I spent more, a lot more than I should - -'
SWtOR is a significantly worse game than this one. It's not relevant to this discussion but I'm always willing to take a shot at that game.
SWTOR?? The best 2011 MMORPG online game? And the best (behind Battlefront) StarWars online game ever made?
Ok, you're being sarcastic... I hope so
Star Wars Galaxies was the best MMO ever made by a mile, SWTOR isnt a bad game but it's no SWG.
Moral of the story... we don't know anything about the finances or why they chose to price something at a specific price. We can complain about "greedy EA" all we want, but unless you are their CFO, whatever you say is just speculation.
You may not know anything. You don't speak for anyone else.
Much of the information is freely available online. (EA is a publicly-traded company.) There are revenue figures available. And a lot of the rest is easily calculated by anyone with the inclination to do so.
Believe what you want, I have no interest in this sort of deliberately nihilistic debate.
ETA: Not everyone on this planet lives solely to make as much money as possible. There are many famous people/companies who have deliberately chosen not to follow the "freemium" model specifically because of its moral implications.
Please provide me one piece of information to backup how much money they have made on this game and how many yachts it has allowed their CEO to purchase. I am not discounting they make good money on the game, I just think it's a joke you start throwing around claims about their profits with having 0 information to back it up.
Lastly, EA must not live solely to make money because they released Battlefront (a desktop game) at the same time as this. If they wanted to make fat profits as you claim, they should have made it P2P. Then their CEO could buy even more yachts!
PS: Their latest earnings report doesn't even mention this game. It does mention Battlefront though. It also shows their mobile financials and they don't even touch their console financials.
That's the last response you get from me, rather tired of your constant anklebiting on my threads.
I am sorry you live in a world where the internet should just let you say whatever you want and not back it up. Some serious claims you are making with no facts. Facts are stubborn things.
No, actually, it isn't. I have an MBA from a top ten school, I've run my own business for nearly 20 years, and I've done a fair bit of studying in this industry.
The freemium model is not used "for survival". It is used because it is extremely profitable due to the way it exploits human psychological weaknesses.
There are many games that do just fine without using this sort of system. Especially a company as large as EA could easily afford to run a game like this on a subscription basis, or use microtransactions only for cosmetics. There are games that do fine even with one-time purchases and the occasional expansion pack, offering unlimited content with no energy barriers or other silliness.
This system is not required, and whales are not "paying the poor devs' salaries so we can all have this wonderful game to enjoy". The model is used because it makes a lot more money than traditional (and more honest) financing schemes because of people who, given the opportunity to spend foolish amounts of money on something, will do it.
Whales are not the difference between devs being employed or unemployed. They are the difference between the CEO getting the 42' yacht or having to settle for the 32' one.
my money is on this scenario.....don't you think it odd that so many games following this model have just exploded onto the scene over the past 5 years or so....probably longer then that but you get the point. Pure and simple it is gambling but there is no upside, a chance to win money, instead we are gambling for zeroes and ones.
my money is on this scenario.....don't you think it odd that so many games following this model have just exploded onto the scene over the past 5 years or so....probably longer then that but you get the point. Pure and simple it is gambling but there is no upside, a chance to win money, instead we are gambling for zeroes and ones.
That's pretty much all it is. They follow the same model as casinos, except they don't have to publish the odds, and they never actually pay out any money.
That's why they all do it: they make a fortune. These games are printing presses, fueled by people with tons of expendable income and little self-discipline. The fact that many of them like to rationalize their expenditures with silliness about how "if it weren't for us the game couldn't exist!" just plays right into their hands.
You don't need inside information, just the ability to look at the obvious and employ common sense and simple math.
Go to CG's website and look at the company picture: it's under 100 people. Yes, there are more at EA that are involved in the project, but this game has already taken in enough revenues to pay for everyone's salaries probably several times over. I'd bet there are only 20 or maybe 30 people at most even working on this game as a full-time job. And it's taking in over $100,000 A DAY. Actually probably over $250,000.
I believe a lot of the big spender stopped spending because of the diminishing return of the chromium pack. I expect a spike of IAP when this pack was announced yesterday because it actually give people what they need: a new character+synergy characters+credits+ability materials.
Judging from the lack of timer on this pack I believe the Aurodium packs are here to stay, with new Chromium exclusive characters in the future.
my money is on this scenario.....don't you think it odd that so many games following this model have just exploded onto the scene over the past 5 years or so....probably longer then that but you get the point. Pure and simple it is gambling but there is no upside, a chance to win money, instead we are gambling for zeroes and ones.
That's pretty much all it is. They follow the same model as casinos, except they don't have to publish the odds, and they never actually pay out any money.
That's why they all do it: they make a fortune. These games are printing presses, fueled by people with tons of expendable income and little self-discipline. The fact that many of them like to rationalize their expenditures with silliness about how "if it weren't for us the game couldn't exist!" just plays right into their hands.
You don't need inside information, just the ability to look at the obvious and employ common sense and simple math.
Go to CG's website and look at the company picture: it's under 100 people. Yes, there are more at EA that are involved in the project, but this game has already taken in enough revenues to pay for everyone's salaries probably several times over. I'd bet there are only 20 or maybe 30 people at most even working on this game as a full-time job. And it's taking in over $100,000 A DAY. Actually probably over $250,000.
More than that. Those figures we saw were US IOS users only. Not Android, and not world wide.
I, admittedly, have not read the whole thread..but would like to state why I (as strictly F2P) am offended by this pack and the most recent patch.
First off, everything you stated is 100% correct (imo) and is good for the games income. I cannot agree more with the facts you have stated. That being said, I believe the priorities are not in the proper areas of focus. For example, there are numerous "known bugs" listed by Jesse on these forums that have been unaddressed and left untouched for literally months now. This brings up my first point that instead of focusing efforts and resources on making the current characters/game/etc work as intended; they are devoting development, engineers, art, etc on forming new content, characters, and interfaces on new (obvious) profit content. If this were a struggling startup that NEEDED the income, I'd be less critical...BUT THIS IS EA! There is no reason to not steadily fix the bugs and issues that are known slowly but surely...rather than pumping out profit content. I could care less about Rex, and only mildly excited about GG, but I am appalled at the ultra slow bug fixing operation that this studio runs.
Honestly, I'd love it if they put out P2W content every week.....JUST FIX THE PROBLEMS YOU HAVE CREATED FIRST! After that, siphon whatever money you can from those willing to spend it.
My other (and weaker) point is the lack of balance/mets. Hopefully this could resolve over time. But I'm growing seriously tired with seeing the same 8-12 characters in arenas. Especially with all the awesome Star Wars entities represented. The fact is, there is/are only a handful of characters worth running and I see that as wrong. Other similar games don't have "THE META". Rather. Adding new characters to the game, just take care othe game and its mechanics first. Also, maybe spread the love to other characters that don't fit the current meta.
I just thought of something to add:
They're actually insulting their target market by leaving the bugs and issues untouched...yet asking for even more money! Every good business knows that it is supposed to be quality over quantity.
This game is not in shambles, by any means, but is in serious need of some tlc.
This is not a game anymore, it's a gambling machine, they crossed the line one more time.
200$ as a minimum, just for one character (a premium character) in a mobile game who doesn't have a real multiplayer, deep content, and... a chat! It's tremendous, it's unreal .
Don't buy it then. I think they should offer as many packs as they want. It's their game and let the user base decided if it's good or not.
This is not the point, I'm just scared.
This can be the future of games industry and it's beggining in this mobile game... a Star Wars mobile game, step by step.
They are not including low spenders, making low cost packs and things like that, since his launch.
Don't take this the wrong way (not trying to be rude) but this has been happening in mobile games FOREVER. This is how they survive. They have to sell you stupid crap to make you feel you need it so you spend money. You got "season passes" in desktop games, and these ludicrous gambling-style "packs" to get your characters in mobile games. I don't see this going anywhere (which is frustrating), so you kind of have to either go F2P and play a handful of games, or you pick 1 game and spend more than you should :P
Yes, I agree with you but in all mobile games that I've played I never saw huge prices like in this game.
Season passes in desktop games don't cost more than 50$, I'm tottaly sure. Even in F2P games, with 100$ you will be a god in the game, definitely. "...you pick 1 game and spend more than you should" Yes, that happend with me in SWTOR, I spent more, a lot more than I should - -'
SWtOR is a significantly worse game than this one. It's not relevant to this discussion but I'm always willing to take a shot at that game.
SWTOR?? The best 2011 MMORPG online game? And the best (behind Battlefront) StarWars online game ever made?
Ok, you're being sarcastic... I hope so
Star Wars Galaxies was the best MMO ever made by a mile, SWTOR isnt a bad game but it's no SWG.
Fixed
I like it. To this day I hate John Smedley for what he did to that game and his smug attitude towards players. I love how SOE doesn't even exist in name anymore. They ran that name into the ground worse than EA.
So a lot of people are unhappy with the pricing and the $200 availability minimum on the Rex pack. This is understandable, nobody wants to be locked out from anything. But some folks are simply writing this off as greed, as them not caring about low spenders, etc. They are completely missing the point, and since I do have some business experience (and a degree in it as well) I figured I'll try to explain what is happening here for those who want to take a break from ranting for some reading.
Disclaimer: I probably won't buy any of these packs. Market Segmentation
We have all discussed the terms "whale", "dolphin", "P2P", "F2P" etc. These refer to different ways that the market for the game is segmented based on purchasing patterns and tendencies. There are also other types of market segmentation, such as geography (where you live), platform (Apple vs. Google) etc. but the most important one is that based on spending.
The Rex pack is actually a brilliant bit of marketing once you understand what it is designed for. It is directly targeted at one market segment, and indirectly targets a second segment as well. Primary Target: Established Whales Who Have Bought Many Chromiums
This pack is designed to appeal to those who have bought so many chromium packs that diminishing returns make buying more to get a single character cost-prohibitive.
It's one thing to spend $3,000 on chromiums to start the game when you have almost nothing and you know that even if you don't like everything you get, you will unlock a lot of characters and some are certain to be ones you will be pleased with. But if you've already done this, as many whales have, you're faced with the prospect of spending thousands of dollars on chromiums just to try to get one character, spending that will yield 99% shards and characters you already have and don't need. That is a bad deal, so most whales refused to try to get Rex.
This pack allows people who do not need shards for other characters but want Rex to "focus-fire" on Rex and get him for a reasonable cost (for a whale). Secondary Target: Risk-Averse Dolphins Who Don't Buy Chromiums
There are many people in the game who spend money but do not use it on chromium packs. The two main reasons are because they (correctly) feel that buying chromiums is a waste if you don't buy a lot of them, or because they dislike the randomness factor (or both). This pack gives these people an option to get a new character that otherwise could only be obtained via chrome packs, without having to do the whole "roulette wheel" thing they hate. Yes there's some randomness, but basically if you put $100 into crystals and buy 20 of these packs, you are very likely to get a usable Rex out of it. As opposed to possibly thousands of dollars to get him the other way. Why the $200 Minimum?
The minimum is there because of the groups being targeted, who are all people who have likely spent more than that anyway.
Why not let F2Pers and low spenders buy it? Because it devalues Rex as a premium character. Remember that this is the only chromium-exclusive character that has been added to the game since launch, and he just came out. Making him available for 5 bucks to non-spenders would immediately mean there was again no new chromium-exclusive. (Arguably, this is still true anyway. I can get Rex now if I want, and I've never bought a chrome pack. But it would be worse if anyone could just get him for a fiver.) Who Should be Upset?
IMO, the only group with a right to be unhappy are whales who spent a fortune on chromium packs after Rex was announced, only to now find they could have gotten him for far less. They did get shards to work towards GG I guess, but that's a LOT of money.
F2Pers who are upset were, I think, making unwarranted assumptions about how this thing would work. What About F2P and Low Spenders?
IMO, CG/EA still needs to put out a low-cost pack to appeal to low spenders and entice F2Pers to spend a little on the game. This is not that pack. We are still waiting and I hope it comes soon.
Still, I'm thinking you are a whale my fiend, Leia 7*, Rey 7* and RG 7* and not buy a Chromium? Really?
So a lot of people are unhappy with the pricing and the $200 availability minimum on the Rex pack. This is understandable, nobody wants to be locked out from anything. But some folks are simply writing this off as greed, as them not caring about low spenders, etc. They are completely missing the point, and since I do have some business experience (and a degree in it as well) I figured I'll try to explain what is happening here for those who want to take a break from ranting for some reading.
Disclaimer: I probably won't buy any of these packs. Market Segmentation
We have all discussed the terms "whale", "dolphin", "P2P", "F2P" etc. These refer to different ways that the market for the game is segmented based on purchasing patterns and tendencies. There are also other types of market segmentation, such as geography (where you live), platform (Apple vs. Google) etc. but the most important one is that based on spending.
The Rex pack is actually a brilliant bit of marketing once you understand what it is designed for. It is directly targeted at one market segment, and indirectly targets a second segment as well. Primary Target: Established Whales Who Have Bought Many Chromiums
This pack is designed to appeal to those who have bought so many chromium packs that diminishing returns make buying more to get a single character cost-prohibitive.
It's one thing to spend $3,000 on chromiums to start the game when you have almost nothing and you know that even if you don't like everything you get, you will unlock a lot of characters and some are certain to be ones you will be pleased with. But if you've already done this, as many whales have, you're faced with the prospect of spending thousands of dollars on chromiums just to try to get one character, spending that will yield 99% shards and characters you already have and don't need. That is a bad deal, so most whales refused to try to get Rex.
This pack allows people who do not need shards for other characters but want Rex to "focus-fire" on Rex and get him for a reasonable cost (for a whale). Secondary Target: Risk-Averse Dolphins Who Don't Buy Chromiums
There are many people in the game who spend money but do not use it on chromium packs. The two main reasons are because they (correctly) feel that buying chromiums is a waste if you don't buy a lot of them, or because they dislike the randomness factor (or both). This pack gives these people an option to get a new character that otherwise could only be obtained via chrome packs, without having to do the whole "roulette wheel" thing they hate. Yes there's some randomness, but basically if you put $100 into crystals and buy 20 of these packs, you are very likely to get a usable Rex out of it. As opposed to possibly thousands of dollars to get him the other way. Why the $200 Minimum?
The minimum is there because of the groups being targeted, who are all people who have likely spent more than that anyway.
Why not let F2Pers and low spenders buy it? Because it devalues Rex as a premium character. Remember that this is the only chromium-exclusive character that has been added to the game since launch, and he just came out. Making him available for 5 bucks to non-spenders would immediately mean there was again no new chromium-exclusive. (Arguably, this is still true anyway. I can get Rex now if I want, and I've never bought a chrome pack. But it would be worse if anyone could just get him for a fiver.) Who Should be Upset?
IMO, the only group with a right to be unhappy are whales who spent a fortune on chromium packs after Rex was announced, only to now find they could have gotten him for far less. They did get shards to work towards GG I guess, but that's a LOT of money.
F2Pers who are upset were, I think, making unwarranted assumptions about how this thing would work. What About F2P and Low Spenders?
IMO, CG/EA still needs to put out a low-cost pack to appeal to low spenders and entice F2Pers to spend a little on the game. This is not that pack. We are still waiting and I hope it comes soon.
Still, I'm thinking you are a whale my fiend, Leia 7*, Rey 7* and RG 7* and not buy a Chromium? Really?
While swapping out for Cheerios that don't have **** in them and replacing your napkin soaked with those salty tears....you should probably actually read his post. No where in there does he even mention those toons let alone state he has them at 7*. Derp.
Sometimes I wonder if games like these are just part of a collaboration between an economics phd student and some cs undergrads. "Price Discrimination in Star Wars Galaxy of Heroes: an analysis of market segmentation and pricing in online gaming" etc etc
Economy and psychology have become extremely close. Especially since you now have the analytics, and a re-evaluation of hiw consumers do NOT make rational choices, but the choices our minds tend to bias to.
Replies
Just because you have an MBA gives you 0% knowledge of their financials. That was my point about purely speculation. You aren't a master of anyone's finances (except your own and your business), regardless of your degree.
If these games are what is giving the CEO a yacht, then why the heck are people still making traditional desktop games (or more fair games). If what you are saying is true, then they are basically making a business decision to lose out on money.
Whales are in fact paying these devs salaries. I am sure they are profiting from the purchases, but without purchases they are not making money and they will drop the game. I have played multiple games like this that ended up shutting down (a recent one was the start was game similar to this, it was from a first person perspective though). I put some good money into that game, and I bet at some point it was raking it in, but then they shut it down. If their model was making their CEO have huge yachts, they would still be making it. Same with the game I used in my quote. It was making tons of money, always up on the top money making list... until it wasn't. Then they devoted their resources to another game and stopped development on the game I played.
Moral of the story... we don't know anything about the finances or why they chose to price something at a specific price. We can complain about "greedy EA" all we want, but unless you are their CFO, whatever you say is just speculation.
You may not know anything. You don't speak for anyone else.
Much of the information is freely available online. (EA is a publicly-traded company.) There are revenue figures available. And a lot of the rest is easily calculated by anyone with the inclination to do so.
Believe what you want, I have no interest in this sort of deliberately nihilistic debate.
ETA: Not everyone on this planet lives solely to make as much money as possible. There are many famous people/companies who have deliberately chosen not to follow the "freemium" model specifically because of its moral implications.
Fixed
Please provide me one piece of information to backup how much money they have made on this game and how many yachts it has allowed their CEO to purchase. I am not discounting they make good money on the game, I just think it's a joke you start throwing around claims about their profits with having 0 information to back it up.
Lastly, EA must not live solely to make money because they released Battlefront (a desktop game) at the same time as this. If they wanted to make fat profits as you claim, they should have made it P2P. Then their CEO could buy even more yachts!
PS: Their latest earnings report doesn't even mention this game. It does mention Battlefront though. It also shows their mobile financials and they don't even touch their console financials.
"Paying within the app is proving more palatable than paying for the app"
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/24/5837254/freemium-apps-dominate-google-play-revenues
EA net income 2015: $875,000,000. Yeah they really need those whales, or they might all starve to death!
http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=910982
That's the last response you get from me, rather tired of your constant anklebiting on my threads.
Smart move on their part
I am sorry you live in a world where the internet should just let you say whatever you want and not back it up. Some serious claims you are making with no facts. Facts are stubborn things.
http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=952277
Read it for yourself.
my money is on this scenario.....don't you think it odd that so many games following this model have just exploded onto the scene over the past 5 years or so....probably longer then that but you get the point. Pure and simple it is gambling but there is no upside, a chance to win money, instead we are gambling for zeroes and ones.
That's pretty much all it is. They follow the same model as casinos, except they don't have to publish the odds, and they never actually pay out any money.
That's why they all do it: they make a fortune. These games are printing presses, fueled by people with tons of expendable income and little self-discipline. The fact that many of them like to rationalize their expenditures with silliness about how "if it weren't for us the game couldn't exist!" just plays right into their hands.
You don't need inside information, just the ability to look at the obvious and employ common sense and simple math.
Go to CG's website and look at the company picture: it's under 100 people. Yes, there are more at EA that are involved in the project, but this game has already taken in enough revenues to pay for everyone's salaries probably several times over. I'd bet there are only 20 or maybe 30 people at most even working on this game as a full-time job. And it's taking in over $100,000 A DAY. Actually probably over $250,000.
I believe a lot of the big spender stopped spending because of the diminishing return of the chromium pack. I expect a spike of IAP when this pack was announced yesterday because it actually give people what they need: a new character+synergy characters+credits+ability materials.
Judging from the lack of timer on this pack I believe the Aurodium packs are here to stay, with new Chromium exclusive characters in the future.
More than that. Those figures we saw were US IOS users only. Not Android, and not world wide.
First off, everything you stated is 100% correct (imo) and is good for the games income. I cannot agree more with the facts you have stated. That being said, I believe the priorities are not in the proper areas of focus. For example, there are numerous "known bugs" listed by Jesse on these forums that have been unaddressed and left untouched for literally months now. This brings up my first point that instead of focusing efforts and resources on making the current characters/game/etc work as intended; they are devoting development, engineers, art, etc on forming new content, characters, and interfaces on new (obvious) profit content. If this were a struggling startup that NEEDED the income, I'd be less critical...BUT THIS IS EA! There is no reason to not steadily fix the bugs and issues that are known slowly but surely...rather than pumping out profit content. I could care less about Rex, and only mildly excited about GG, but I am appalled at the ultra slow bug fixing operation that this studio runs.
Honestly, I'd love it if they put out P2W content every week.....JUST FIX THE PROBLEMS YOU HAVE CREATED FIRST! After that, siphon whatever money you can from those willing to spend it.
My other (and weaker) point is the lack of balance/mets. Hopefully this could resolve over time. But I'm growing seriously tired with seeing the same 8-12 characters in arenas. Especially with all the awesome Star Wars entities represented. The fact is, there is/are only a handful of characters worth running and I see that as wrong. Other similar games don't have "THE META". Rather. Adding new characters to the game, just take care othe game and its mechanics first. Also, maybe spread the love to other characters that don't fit the current meta.
They're actually insulting their target market by leaving the bugs and issues untouched...yet asking for even more money! Every good business knows that it is supposed to be quality over quantity.
This game is not in shambles, by any means, but is in serious need of some tlc.
I like it. To this day I hate John Smedley for what he did to that game and his smug attitude towards players. I love how SOE doesn't even exist in name anymore. They ran that name into the ground worse than EA.
Still, I'm thinking you are a whale my fiend, Leia 7*, Rey 7* and RG 7* and not buy a Chromium? Really?
While swapping out for Cheerios that don't have **** in them and replacing your napkin soaked with those salty tears....you should probably actually read his post. No where in there does he even mention those toons let alone state he has them at 7*. Derp.
Economy and psychology have become extremely close. Especially since you now have the analytics, and a re-evaluation of hiw consumers do NOT make rational choices, but the choices our minds tend to bias to.
Seriously though, this thread is embarrassing